263 P.3d 1017
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant seeks reversal of a trial court judgment committing him as mentally ill for up to 180 days under ORS 426.130.
- State sought commitment based on a finding that appellant’s mental disorder made him dangerous to himself and others; appellate court reviews sufficiency of evidence de novo in limited circumstances.
- Trial court did not make express factual findings but concluded, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellant was a danger to self and others.
- Appellant has bipolar disorder in a manic, decompensated state, with little insight, who refused medication and had recent dangerous conduct and hospital holds.
- Prior episodes include a May 2008 suicide attempt by jumping from a two-story building resulting in serious injuries, and two near-miss driving incidents showing dangerous behavior prior to the hearing.
- Record shows the psychiatrist’s view that appellant could escalate when out of hospital and would not benefit from voluntary treatment; the court ordered commitment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports danger to self by clear and convincing standard | B. B. contends no clear and convincing evidence of danger to self. | State argues the record supports danger to self by clear and convincing evidence. | Yes; evidence could sustain danger to self under the standard. |
| Whether the court properly treated the absence of express factual findings | Appellant argues lack of express findings undermines review. | State contends Court may rely on implicit findings supported by record. | Court affirmed based on implied findings and sufficient evidence. |
| Whether de novo review was proper or warranted in this case | Appellant requests de novo review. | State argues this case is not exceptional for de novo review and should follow trial-record standard. | Court declined de novo review and reviewed under ordinary statutory standard. |
| Whether admission of prior serious episodes supports current danger to self | Past episodes show ongoing risk. | Past events are probative but not dispositive without present danger. | Yes; prior decompensation and current manic state support danger to self. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. B. B., 240 Or App 75 (2010) (reviews evidence for danger to self using clear and convincing standard; uses light most favorable to state)
- State v. D. R., 239 Or App 576 (2010) (sufficiency review under clear and convincing standard for danger to self)
- Gritzbaugh Main Street Prop. v. Greyhound Lines, 205 Or App 640 (2006) (defines the ‘clear and convincing’ standard as certainty required in the mind of the factfinder)
- Oberg v. Honda Motor Co., 320 Or 544 (1995) (reviewing punitive damages to see if evidence supports finding by clear and convincing standard)
- Cunningham, 320 Or 47 (1994) (standard of review in criminal cases—whether evidence could support the finding beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Onita Pacific Corp. v. Trustees of Bronson, 122 Or App 452 (1993) (limits scope to whether a rational factfinder could find the requisite evidence)
- State v. Olsen, 208 Or App 686 (2006) (requires near-term risk showing behavior likely to cause physical harm)
- State v. North, 189 Or App 518 (2003) (requires evidence of serious physical harm risk to sustain danger to self)
- North, Olsen, and related lines, - (-) (discusses standards for danger to self in commitment context)